The legacy of 'Kingston Inc.'

Those with long memories will recall that amalgamation in Kingston brought with it the restructuring of our municipal government. Indeed, at times it seemed the restructuring discussions were at least as tortured as the amalgamation negotiations, if not more so.

The new organization was designed to meet the presumed needs of the time: a minimalist organization focused on serving "customers" and preoccupied with tax reduction and cost control.

The organization would be "results oriented" just like a business. It would "introduce the influences of the free market into a public-sector organization."

The official name for this model was "enterprise model." The unofficial name was "Kingston Inc."

Fundamental to the model was the proposition that the organizing principles of traditional public service were obsolete. In an organization consisting of "enterprise agencies," it followed that city council would function more like a private-sector board of directors than an elected democratic government.

* Citizens were reinvented as customers, engaging in service transactions with the city’s enterprise agencies rather than participating in the workings of local democracy.

* The administration was highly centralized under the direction of the CAO, focusing on delivery of strategic priorities rather than the traditional advisory/executory role of a democratic bureaucracy.

* The organization was inculcated with a culture of customer service rather than public service, drawing on competencies disconnected from relevant public-sector qualification and experience.

* Outsourcing would be used extensively, backstopping the gaps in organizational capacity created by the voluntary exit package.

A resolute challenge to the model came from the citizenry in the new city’s first community strategic plan exercise. This open and inclusive exercise proposed a significantly broader vision for the role, and therefore the agenda, of city government than was provided for by Kingston Inc.

It can be noted that including citizens in the city’s strategic planning has not been repeated. Strategic priorities and the annual budget are now determined in staff-led exercises closed to citizen input.

Fast-forward 20 years, and despite the best efforts of some past and present members of council to broaden the model’s vision, the lingering effects of the model are apparent:

* Citizens continue to be marginalized, as observed by community groups such as the Coalition of Kingston Communities. Citizen participation in the local government has been effectively limited by way of arbitrary meeting protocols and wavering commitment to inclusion. Public planning processes have been manipulated to favour applicants over neighbourhoods. The heritage committee has been effectively sidelined. And so on.

* Council has no effective control over administrative structure, reporting relationships, or capacity issues such as staff complement and qualifications. This disconnects council from its bureaucracy, undermines role clarity and frustrates information flow, and compromises alignment between council direction and staff execution. As a result, staff have been empowered to disregard council direction, as in the recent planning process review. Information flows have been manipulated, as recently evidenced with respect to the third crossing and the redevelopment of Kingston Pen. Important work left off the strategic priority short list, such as a new zoning bylaw, simply does not get done.

* Meeting protocols have been streamlined to foster efficient approval of staff recommendations rather than healthy democratic debate. Committees have been bypassed, disregarded or disbanded.

* Persistence of the capacity deficit created by the voluntary exit package, which was raised but simply dismissed as irrelevant 20 years ago, is suggested by a steady parade of consultants and contractors who are engaged notwithstanding the exceptional contributions of some managers and the members of the city’s bargaining units. Underfunding of key municipal functions such as planning and legal services continues to be evident.

* Code of conduct controversies have shone a light on a remarkable lack of institutional understanding of the role of elected citizens in democratic government, and surprising lack of clarity regarding the distinction between conduct issues and conflict of interest. In a double irony, the code has been invoked to stifle fair comment by a member of council on a matter of public interest.

Why should we care? Maybe open and transparent democracy, community building and good process really don’t matter.

On the other hand, maybe the legacy of Kingston Inc. will be worth talking about in the run-up to the 2018 election.